Appeal Number: 2006-1385 Application Number: 10/452,753 We turn next to claim 7. Appellants assert (Br. 9) that Shridhara and Beesley do not teach maintaining satellite positioning system receiver signal gain during blanking. We agree. From our review of Shridhara and Beesley, we find no suggestion for maintaining satellite positioning system receiver signal gain during blanking. We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 7. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley. We turn next to claim 8. Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding this claim, but generally argue that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose the claimed features. From our review of the record, we find that Shridhara discloses storing a satellite positioning system correlator output signal and detecting the presence of a jamming signal in the satellite positioning system receiver by analyzing the stored information (col. 4, ll. 39-43). Therefore, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the teachings of Shridhara would have suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claim 8. For the lack of any specific arguments by Appellants, and our agreement with the Examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of any error in the part of the Examiner regarding the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley is sustained. We turn next to claim 9, which depends from claim 8. Appellants assert (Br. 10) that none of the references analyze a stored correlator output signal to identify a characteristic of a jamming signal and synchronize the blanking signal with the jamming signal based on the identified characteristic. We agree. From our review of Shridhara and Beesley, we find no suggestion for identifying a characteristic of 11Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013